4.7 Article

A simple clinical method for predicting the benefit of prone vs. supine positioning in reducing heart exposure during left breast radiotherapy

Journal

RADIOTHERAPY AND ONCOLOGY
Volume 126, Issue 3, Pages 487-492

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.12.021

Keywords

Breast radiotherapy; Clinical tool; Heart protection; Individual positioning; LAD protection

Funding

  1. VKSZ project [12-1-2013-0012]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose: The benefit of reduced radiation heart exposure in the prone vs. supine position individually differs. In this prospective cohort study, the goal was to develop a simple method for the operation of a validated model for the prediction of preferable treatment position during left breast radiotherapy. Material and methods: In 100 cases, a single CT slice was utilized for the collection of the needed patient specific data (in addition to body mass index, the distance of the LAD from the chest wall and the area of the heart included in the radiation fields at the middle of the heart in the supine position). Outcome was analyzed in relation to the full CT series acquired in both positions and dosimetric data. Results: Great consistency was found between the tested and original method regarding sensitivity and specificity. The prioritization of LAD dose, and the use of heart dose and position-specific dose constraints as safety measures ensure sensitivity and specificity values of 82.8% and 87.3%, respectively. In an additional routine clinical practice series of 60 patients the new method seemed feasible in routine clinical practice. External testing on a 28-case series indicated similar accuracy. Conclusion: We consider this simple clinical tool appropriate for assisting individual positioning aiming at maximum heart protection during left breast irradiation. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Radiotherapy and Oncology 126 (2018) 487-492

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available